5 ms·

British still seem to believe they are legit in the Islands. It is actually an occupation since 1833.

tjalfi 9y ago
99.8% of residents voted to remain a UK Overseas Territory in 2013[0]. If that's an occupation then it has pretty overwhelming popular support. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_referendum,_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_r...
- fmmseptiembre 9y ago
  What could be expected? Most local population on Malvinas these days is of British origin.
  - int_19h 9y ago
    Most local population on Falklands has been of British origin since, what, 1840? Ultimately, the important part is that there are no living people, whether on the islands or elsewhere, who are harmed by British control of the island, and there are plenty of living people who would be harmed by it being ceded to Argentine.
    - throwanem 9y ago
      Really, the important part is that Argentina lost the war. But I get that people need to blow off steam about that sort of thing from time to time - there's something humiliating in losing a fight you started, especially when your opponent, basically just for the hell of it, sinks the severely superannuated secondhand light cruiser that's the pride of your nation's adorable little pocket navy. Why take it seriously? The result that matters is in. All the rest is just woofing.
    - mrleinad 9y ago
      All argentineans are harmed. We're being plundered from our natural resources by the UK.
      - int_19h 9y ago
        If we're unwinding back almost 200 years to reach that conclusion, why not go 600? Have you appropriately compensated the native Argentinian tribes for the natural resources that you have plundered from them?
        mrleinad 9y ago
        We're talking about modern countries, not prehistoric societies. Please try to keep up.
        int_19h 9y ago
        We are? Do people in "prehistoric societies" (whatever that is supposed to mean) not have rights to territory, or to natural resources? In any case, I was definitely talking about people, not countries - this is clearly spelled out in the comment that started this thread. I don't care about countries. They only exist to serve the people, and any such rights they claim above and beyond that are illegitimate.
- mrleinad 9y ago
  Well, if I take all my friends to your house, kick you out of it, and we all vote it's ours, we can keep it then?
PhilWright 9y ago
You know what they say, possession is 9/10 tenths of the law! Besides, it is kind of difficult to decide who really owns any land when you look back through the long and complicated history of just about any modern country. Who should own Argentina? It used force to separate itself from Spain, so should Spain still have a claim over it? Should they demand it back again? How did Spain get it in the first place? By conquering the place, which means it was stolen from the natives. Should the descendants of the natives claim it back? But then the natives no doubt were made up of tribes/groups that used force to change ownership. So are you going to work that out backwards to the first tribe to arrive in the area many thousands of years ago? Where do you draw the line? Given the complexity you pretty much end up with the fairest method being to ask the actual inhabitants who they want to govern them. They said they want the British.
- mrleinad 9y ago
  Nop, you're just mudding the discussion. Here are the facts: - Spain named several governors for those islands from 1774 to 1810. Sovereignity was clearly stated by Spain over those islands. - During that time, those islands depended of Buenos Aires government. - If Spain owned Argentina plus the Malvinas, then once Argentina got its independence from Spain, the Malvinas were included as part of that independence. - 1820, frigate La Heroína sailed to Malvinas to take possesion of it - 1825, Great Britain admitted Argentina's independence from Spain, but didn't claim the islands. - 1828, Buenos Aires government granted Port Soledad to Luis Vernet, for building up a colony. For this purpose, he shipped 100 inhabitants to the islands. - 1829, Vernet was named as governor of the islands - 1833, Great Britain took the Malvinas, and expelled the inhabitants from the islands. Not to mention other facts like geology, and that the UN approved the new map for Argentina, which expands the continental shelf all around the islands.[1][2] So, care to tell me how can Argentina OWN all the argentinean sea shelf AROUND the islands, BUT the islands? [1] http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/OP/OP14UPDT.HTM http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/OP/OP14UPDT.HTM [2] http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/IMAGES/ARG-CNSH.JPG http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/IMAGES/ARG-CNSH.J...
  - PhilWright 9y ago

99.8% of residents voted to remain a UK Overseas Territory in 2013[0]. If that's an occupation then it has pretty overwhelming popular support. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_referendum,_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_r...

fmmseptiembre 9y ago
What could be expected? Most local population on Malvinas these days is of British origin.
- int_19h 9y ago
  Most local population on Falklands has been of British origin since, what, 1840? Ultimately, the important part is that there are no living people, whether on the islands or elsewhere, who are harmed by British control of the island, and there are plenty of living people who would be harmed by it being ceded to Argentine.
  - throwanem 9y ago
    Really, the important part is that Argentina lost the war. But I get that people need to blow off steam about that sort of thing from time to time - there's something humiliating in losing a fight you started, especially when your opponent, basically just for the hell of it, sinks the severely superannuated secondhand light cruiser that's the pride of your nation's adorable little pocket navy. Why take it seriously? The result that matters is in. All the rest is just woofing.
  - mrleinad 9y ago
    All argentineans are harmed. We're being plundered from our natural resources by the UK.
    - int_19h 9y ago
      If we're unwinding back almost 200 years to reach that conclusion, why not go 600? Have you appropriately compensated the native Argentinian tribes for the natural resources that you have plundered from them?
      - mrleinad 9y ago
        We're talking about modern countries, not prehistoric societies. Please try to keep up.
        int_19h 9y ago
        We are? Do people in "prehistoric societies" (whatever that is supposed to mean) not have rights to territory, or to natural resources? In any case, I was definitely talking about people, not countries - this is clearly spelled out in the comment that started this thread. I don't care about countries. They only exist to serve the people, and any such rights they claim above and beyond that are illegitimate.
mrleinad 9y ago
Well, if I take all my friends to your house, kick you out of it, and we all vote it's ours, we can keep it then?

PhilWright 9y ago

You know what they say, possession is 9/10 tenths of the law! Besides, it is kind of difficult to decide who really owns any land when you look back through the long and complicated history of just about any modern country. Who should own Argentina? It used force to separate itself from Spain, so should Spain still have a claim over it? Should they demand it back again? How did Spain get it in the first place? By conquering the place, which means it was stolen from the natives. Should the descendants of the natives claim it back? But then the natives no doubt were made up of tribes/groups that used force to change ownership. So are you going to work that out backwards to the first tribe to arrive in the area many thousands of years ago? Where do you draw the line? Given the complexity you pretty much end up with the fairest method being to ask the actual inhabitants who they want to govern them. They said they want the British.

mrleinad 9y ago
Nop, you're just mudding the discussion. Here are the facts: - Spain named several governors for those islands from 1774 to 1810. Sovereignity was clearly stated by Spain over those islands. - During that time, those islands depended of Buenos Aires government. - If Spain owned Argentina plus the Malvinas, then once Argentina got its independence from Spain, the Malvinas were included as part of that independence. - 1820, frigate La Heroína sailed to Malvinas to take possesion of it - 1825, Great Britain admitted Argentina's independence from Spain, but didn't claim the islands. - 1828, Buenos Aires government granted Port Soledad to Luis Vernet, for building up a colony. For this purpose, he shipped 100 inhabitants to the islands. - 1829, Vernet was named as governor of the islands - 1833, Great Britain took the Malvinas, and expelled the inhabitants from the islands. Not to mention other facts like geology, and that the UN approved the new map for Argentina, which expands the continental shelf all around the islands.[1][2] So, care to tell me how can Argentina OWN all the argentinean sea shelf AROUND the islands, BUT the islands? [1] http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/OP/OP14UPDT.HTM http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/OP/OP14UPDT.HTM [2] http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/IMAGES/ARG-CNSH.JPG http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/IMAGES/ARG-CNSH.J...
- PhilWright 9y ago